Benghazi may not qualify as a scandal, but being concerned about how it was (or wasn't) handled doesn't make you a partisan hack, either.Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
Dismissing people who disagree with you as shills is neither productive nor persuasive. And with all due respect, the indignation is tough to swallow. Nobody called you a "Rush Limbaugh redneck savage."
Edit: Just went back up thread and saw where someone called you stupid. Not OK, and flagged.
Benghazi was a transparent attempt to manufacture a scandal. It's easy to point fingers in hindsight, but let's not forget that many of the people pointing those fingers would have (and in some cases, probably had) vociferously opposed the government spending more on security. It was Monday-morning quarterbacking at its most disingenuous.
In my opinion, Obama badly miscalculated on Syria and has made something of a mess of things. But trotting out Benghazi here just makes you look the partisan.
Depends on which part you think needs scrutiny. The attack itself, or Susan Rice's comments. Certain committee hearings seemed only concerned with the latter.
Sigh, I'm done with this. Criticize Obama and you are immediately accused of being a Rush Limbaugh redneck savage.
I've got better things to do with my time than interact with such partisan shills.
Dismissing people who disagree with you as shills is neither productive nor persuasive. And with all due respect, the indignation is tough to swallow. Nobody called you a "Rush Limbaugh redneck savage."
Edit: Just went back up thread and saw where someone called you stupid. Not OK, and flagged.
Benghazi was a transparent attempt to manufacture a scandal. It's easy to point fingers in hindsight, but let's not forget that many of the people pointing those fingers would have (and in some cases, probably had) vociferously opposed the government spending more on security. It was Monday-morning quarterbacking at its most disingenuous.
In my opinion, Obama badly miscalculated on Syria and has made something of a mess of things. But trotting out Benghazi here just makes you look the partisan.
Fair. Also kryz, can you please go back to being the guy I argue politics with? Your even tone of late makes me feel all weird!
Benghazi may not qualify as a scandal, but being concerned about how it was (or wasn't) handled doesn't make you a partisan hack, either.
The administration wasn't responsible for the attack, just how it was interpreted, and what their take on it was. Which was baloney, imho.
I don't think it was intentional (hey let's lie to people cuz we're in the middle of debates here), but it sure made them (Carney, Obama, Hilary, Rice) certainly look incompetant.
Does that qualify as a scandal? Not if it wasn't intentional.
Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The USA needs more conservatives like you Kryzbyn. Folks might never agree on certain points but I like to think that mutual respect would lead to compromise that would be good for everyone.The administration wasn't responsible for the attack, just how it was interpreted, and what their take on it was. Which was baloney, imho.
I don't think it was intentional (hey let's lie to people cuz we're in the middle of debates here), but it sure made them (Carney, Obama, Hilary, Rice) certainly look incompetant.
Does that qualify as a scandal? Not if it wasn't intentional.
Wow, thanks :)
Wow, thanks :)Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The USA needs more conservatives like you Kryzbyn. Folks might never agree on certain points but I like to think that mutual respect would lead to compromise that would be good for everyone.The administration wasn't responsible for the attack, just how it was interpreted, and what their take on it was. Which was baloney, imho.
I don't think it was intentional (hey let's lie to people cuz we're in the middle of debates here), but it sure made them (Carney, Obama, Hilary, Rice) certainly look incompetant.
Does that qualify as a scandal? Not if it wasn't intentional.
hey! That's what I said!
Remember, remember the 5th of November...
|
Getting back to the topic of Syria, I'm pretty sure Russia and Assad have just pwned us with this "Kerry Proposal" thing.
So now Assad wants international forces to take custody of all his chemical weapons. Well, that's going to be an extremely complicated process, and it's going to take years. And guess who's going to have to still be around for all of those years to make sure it happens? Why Mr. Assad, of course. Better not destabilize things before we can secure all the chemical weapons. Better defeat those rebels double quick so they don't interfere.
Well played, Mr. Assad. Well played.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an international agency we trust to enforce international law?
As long as the spandex uniforms don't have sweatboxes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is there an international agency we trust to enforce international law?Yeah, it's called the UN.
Hey look, the US, russia, china, france, or england is breaking the law
US, russia, china, france, or england" No, we're not
UN: "no they're not"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a solution for this:
Appoint Ireland the world police force, Switzerland the world court, and Finland the world jail.
I doubt Citizen Icyshadow would appove.
I'll notify Officer O'Hara immediately.
|
Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The USA needs more conservatives like you Kryzbyn. Folks might never agree on certain points but I like to think that mutual respect would lead to compromise that would be good for everyone.The administration wasn't responsible for the attack, just how it was interpreted, and what their take on it was. Which was baloney, imho.
I don't think it was intentional (hey let's lie to people cuz we're in the middle of debates here), but it sure made them (Carney, Obama, Hilary, Rice) certainly look incompetant.
Does that qualify as a scandal? Not if it wasn't intentional.
I'd say it could use a few more liberals that weren't over-the-top insane as well.
Was Hugo Chavez an over-the-top insane liberal?
I mean we've got our token Commie here. <bows to the Goblin>
[Returns bow]
Man, what's wrong with me? I read a bio of MLK and I start bowing to tokenism as a solution to the problems of anti-goblin bigotry?!?
Down with Paizo!
Vive le Galt!
]I'm still looking for the "over-the-top insane liberals".Turn on MSNBC.
Ok, turn it on, let me know when you get to something that's insane enough to be the material component for a fireball. I'll take a drink.
I'll turn on fox news and let you know when they say something crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball. You take a drink
By the end of the night I should be pleasantly drunk while I read your will.
Neither side is perfect is NOT the same as the two sides being equal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish America had more over-the-top insane liberals. Then I'd have more people I could talk to.
Not that I'm a liberal...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]I'm still looking for the "over-the-top insane liberals".Turn on MSNBC.Ok, turn it on, let me know when you get to something that's insane enough to be the material component for a fireball. I'll take a drink.
I'll turn on fox news and let you know when they say something crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball. You take a drink
By the end of the night I should be pleasantly drunk while I read your will.
Neither side is perfect is NOT the same as the two sides being equal.
Gotta love the way liberal is portrayed as moderate, moderate is portrayed as conservative, and conservative is portrayed as the devil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Liberals have always been moderates. That's why they're called liberals. If they were extreme, they'd be called radicals. Like me.
As has been previously pointed out on these boards by folks more knowledgeable than I am, the term "liberal" has meant so many things in so many different contexts, it might be better to use "progressive" instead. I understand our use of "liberal" is particularly confusing to some of our European friends.
Gotta love the way liberal is portrayed as moderate, moderate is portrayed as conservative, and conservative is portrayed as the devil.
There are very few genuinely leftist politicians in America. Bernie Sanders is one. Obama, the Clintons, et al are slightly left of center, but still very moderate.
There used to be moderate Republicans. Bob Dole was one, so were Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon. Since the Reagan revolution the politics of the GOP have been shifting farther and farther right. Since 2000 the politics of the Democratic party have shifted farther and farther right. Since Obama was elected, the GOP has flown headlong into radical right territory with the tea party revolution in 2010.
The far right would be extreme religious conservatives, libertarians, small government taxophobes, etc.
The far left would be genuine socialists, advocating the confiscation of private property and the means of production.
Do you REALLY think there are more mainstream voices from the far right or the far left? Which of these concepts do you hear get more time talked about, and which side has control over the national conversation?
Obama is so far from being a liberal it's not even funny. If he were a socialist he would and could have nationalized the banks and the auto industry and rammed through single-payer healthcare. Instead we have record high financial indices, banks run amok, the auto industry making buko bank (even while Detroit goes bankrupt) and we have implemented a healthcare program suggested by the Heritage foundation.
Gotta love the way liberal is portrayed as moderate, moderate is portrayed as conservative, and conservative is portrayed as the devil.
I assume you're talking about MSNBC?
Obama is so far from being a liberal it's not even funny. If he were a socialist he would and could have nationalized the banks and the auto industry and rammed through single-payer healthcare. Instead we have record high financial indices, banks run amok, the auto industry making buko bank (even while Detroit goes bankrupt) and we have implemented a healthcare program suggested by the Heritage foundation.
Yup....which is why it's so amusing to hear Obama called a socialist. If If I were a socialist, I'd be offended. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, people. Left and right are DEAD concepts today. What matters is statist or anti-authoritarian. Sadly, the only kind of politician you guys have is statist ones. Even the most vocal anti-authoritarians you have seem to have voted through all kinds of statist shit.
This is where the gobbo and people like me can find (admittedly little) common ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, people. Left and right are DEAD concepts today. What matters is statist or anti-authoritarian. Sadly, the only kind of politician you guys have is statist ones. Even the most vocal anti-authoritarians you have seem to have voted through all kinds of statist s!!+.
This is where the gobbo and people like me can find (admittedly little) common ground.
Um...no. I guess I'm one of those crazy people that thinks government has a role to play in creating a better society and we're not better off letting corporations run everything.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So that is why the government should expand its power by making you powerless, and giving more power to the corporations...? Uh-huh, gotcha.
Gotta love the way liberal is portrayed as moderate, moderate is portrayed as conservative, and conservative is portrayed as the devil.]I'm still looking for the "over-the-top insane liberals".Turn on MSNBC.Ok, turn it on, let me know when you get to something that's insane enough to be the material component for a fireball. I'll take a drink.
I'll turn on fox news and let you know when they say something crazy enough to be the material component for a fireball. You take a drink
By the end of the night I should be pleasantly drunk while I read your will.
Neither side is perfect is NOT the same as the two sides being equal.
Who do you think is the left's equivalent of Michelle Bachmann?
Are you saying that you dodged it because there are no uranium mines in Mali?
And if there are no uranium mines in Mali (or hopes to have them by the 22nd century) then why were Malians in Falea organizing against uranium mining in March of 2012?
Yes, that was my point.
Your link points to an article explaining that malians do organize against the opening of an uranium mine by canadian interests. I didn't know.
Now I am confused : why the RMC didn't invade Mali ? :)
So, the article didn't say anything about uranium mines, just uranium, you say there are no uranium mines in Mali, which there are, and therefore there is uranium in Mali.
Which brings us back to:
Very uninformed piece of s!!#, as Mali has no uranium : it's Niger.
It puts quite a defavorable perspective on the accuracy and seriousness of the whole, eh ?
Now you are playing obtuse. Read again your "piece of news" : malians organize against a mine PROJECT, as in FUTURE. Still, no mine yet.
Whatever, if a uranium mine do open, it will be managed by canadians. What would be the motive for the french to protect canadian economic interets? Play nice with fellow imperialists?
Of course, there is (probably) uranium in Mali. The fricking country is HUGE. As in a lot and lot of other places, devoid of djihadists, tuareg separatists, etc.
[Edit: for reference, here is a link to a map showing the uranium exploited by Areva (our main nuclear society). If you add propspecting sites, the whole map is painted blue. So the malian uranium isn't exactly a very presssing concern.
Now a piece of vocabulary : islamists are people who believe that Islam (that is, their religion) should play a role in politics, the same way european christian-democrats or, well, absolutely all american politicians I know, do. For example, Turkey has a islamist PM. Last time I checked, he didn't blow anything (except some protesters, but sadly that isn't a monopoly of islamists governments; cf. OWS).
Djihadists are the kind of guys who want you to convert or else, and don't mind if you die in the process. They aren't interested in politics, and would make awful town councilors.
Are we on the same page?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever, if a uranium mine do open, it will be managed by canadians. What would be the motive for the french to protect canadian economic interets? Play nice with fellow imperialists?
Where do I sign up to serve this glorious empire?
Gotta love the way liberal is portrayed as moderate, moderate is portrayed as conservative, and conservative is portrayed as the devil.
Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Whatever, if a uranium mine do open, it will be managed by canadians. What would be the motive for the french to protect canadian economic interets? Play nice with fellow imperialists?
France uses a lot of nuclear power.
More uranium= lower prices = cheaper power
?